Witt v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership
307 F.R.D. 554
D. Colo.2014Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Witt sued GC Services under the FDCPA alleging a March 21, 2013 call in which she disputed a Sprint debt and that GC Services failed to mark the account as disputed with credit bureaus. Plaintiff waived actual damages (leaving statutory damages up to $1,000 plus fees).
- Central factual disputes: what was said on the March 21 call (a recording exists), what GC Services reported to credit bureaus (dates in March–May 2013), and what policies/procedures GC Services maintained to avoid errors.
- Plaintiff served interrogatories and document requests seeking specifics about communications to credit bureaus and Sprint and about GC Services’ bona fide error defense and related policies.
- GC Services initially served brief, incomplete discovery responses, later supplemented them multiple times and disclosed that its automated Star Collections System transmitted data to bureaus on specific dates and that responsive account detail listings were produced (Bates GC14–21).
- The magistrate found defense counsel’s initial responses deficient and in violation of Rule 26(g) (certification/ reasonable inquiry), imposed a $500 sanction payable to plaintiff’s counsel, and ordered a limited supplementation regarding Interrogatory No. 8 (policies/procedures and training).
- The court denied (without prejudice) GC Services’ amended motion to compel plaintiff’s discovery responses because defense counsel failed to follow the court’s required meet-and-confer/telephone-conference practice before filing opposed discovery motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of GC Services’ answers to interrogatories/requests (Interrogs. 3,4; RFPs 1,2) | Responses omitted specifics about what was communicated, when, how, and which systems/individuals; plaintiff needs particulars to pursue FDCPA claim and prepare 30(b)(6) deposition | GC Services says it produced all relevant documents (account detail listing GC14–21) and that much reporting is automatic; plaintiff simply wants form different than produced | Court found initial responses evasive/incomplete in violation of Rule 37; but much of the granular detail can be pursued at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; plaintiff’s motion granted in part and otherwise denied |
| Claim for details supporting bona fide error affirmative defense (Interrogatory 8) | GC Services asserted bona fide error but refused to identify persons, procedures, dates, investigations, or related documents | GC Services asserted employees made no errors and that any error would be inadvertent; initially refused to provide specifics until court determined liability | Court ordered supplementation: identify and describe all policies/procedures (written or not) and training/monitoring programs relevant to avoiding errors and telephone interactions; supplementation due within 7 days |
| Sanctions for discovery certification and conduct (Rule 26(g)) | Plaintiff sought fees/costs for bringing motion and for deficient responses | GC Services argued plaintiff’s discovery requests were disproportionate and that it had complied by producing GC14–21 | Court found defense counsel violated Rule 26(g) by serving inadequate initial responses and not reasonably inquiring; imposed $500 monetary sanction on defense counsel under Rule 26(g)(3); did not award broader Rule 37 fees |
| Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s discovery and motion for sanctions | (N/A for plaintiff) Plaintiff claimed some defense requests were moot after waiver of actual damages | Defendant filed amended motion to compel/sanctions without following the court’s explicit meet-and-confer/telephone conference requirement | Court denied Defendant’s amended motion without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s practice/order to obtain leave (meet-and-confer and court conference) before filing opposed discovery motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (attorney ethical duty limited by duty to comply with law and professional conduct)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (attorney’s duties include compliance with legality and professional standards)
- In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.) (Rule 26 scope: party-controlled and court-permitted discovery)
- Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir.) (discovery subject to overriding limitation of good faith)
- Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir.) (Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee preparation obligation)